Perhaps, as Head of Music at Media Sound, I can put a different slant on this for you. We decided to network our breakfast output across four stations in November 2010 - those are four stations with four different names. Our breakfast show contains split travel updates for each TSA, split news, split events listings....even split weather. Our technology allows our presenter to deliver split links or talk to any individual station at any given time. During the recent wintry weather we delivered split school closures too. Our current breakfast show is no less local in content than it was 2 years ago when we had four separate stations delivering four separate shows.

I can also guarantee that such a decision wasn't taken lightly - it's not about lining the pockets of our shareholders with massive dividends, it was about securing the future of four relatively small licences at a time when trading conditions are as tough as they have been for many years.

The licence of one of our stations has recently been up for renewal - it is now being fast-tracked as no rival bids were received. It's all very well stations handing licences back but if nobody else out there has the resources or ability to deliver something in its place then that area simply loses a local station - how is that going to save the local radio model you seem so passionate about? I admire your passion but your knowledge and understanding of the costs of delivering a decent local radio service in the current economic conditions seems to be lacking.

But don't take my word, why not have a listen tomorrow morning for yourself?

Thank you for that.

Believe me i do know how tough it is for small stations & Ofcom have it even harder by allowing the networking & format changes of larger stations which then leads to the vicious circle of smaller stations networking .

It seems that you are doing are more than the minimum to try and retain local & fair play to you for that. It possible to do it like you do, but many don't & that includes the bigger operations.

I still think that stations wanting to change things should be forced to re-advertisment or at the very least a link to a proper consultation on their website & messages on air directing listeners to it. I suspect you would find a lot of opposition to some of these changes from real listeners.

If we are not going to do that, then sweep away Ofcom & all the rules & let stations do as they please.

It's not the first time that Kent's seen breakfast shows get merged into one of course. Invicta's Morning Zoo was a result of merging 3 separate breakfast shows. Simon West on 103.1 & 102.8, Simon Beale on Ashford & Geoff Fitch on Thanet.
Back then there were no redundancies though as Bealey moved to co-host with Neil Francis, Simon moved to mid mornings and Geoff went to Supergold. I think he cued Sledgehammer up to the proper point by then.

I still think that stations wanting to change things should be forced to re-advertisment or at the very least a link to a proper consultation on their website & messages on air directing listeners to it. I suspect you would find a lot of opposition to some of these changes from real listeners.

If we are not going to do that, then sweep away Ofcom & all the rules & let stations do as they please.

In the case of KMFM this is irrelevant though - you cannot hold a consultation on proposed changes that fall within the scope of the localness rules in place.

KMFM's proposal is in line with the approved local area rules so there was no point holding a consultation.

Believe me i do know how tough it is for small stations & Ofcom have it even harder by allowing the networking & format changes of larger stations which then leads to the vicious circle of smaller stations networking .

It seems that you are doing are more than the minimum to try and retain local & fair play to you for that. It possible to do it like you do, but many don't & that includes the bigger operations.

I still think that stations wanting to change things should be forced to re-advertisment or at the very least a link to a proper consultation on their website & messages on air directing listeners to it. I suspect you would find a lot of opposition to some of these changes from real listeners.

If we are not going to do that, then sweep away Ofcom & all the rules & let stations do as they please.

Hang on. What's the difference between what this group is doing and Capital daytime jocks recording a few custom links for local stations?

This group does split news, as does Capital and Heart.

The guy says he didn't take the decision to network lightly. Nor, I can safely say, did KMFM.

It seems like you are now prepared to accept networking on financial terms for smaller groups, but not the larger ones - purely because of the enormous grudge you have against them.

Then you admit that OFCOM have a hard enough time of it, conjouring up an unproven link between big groups networking and smaller stations following suit?

Don't you think that if a small group had a bunch of stations which they could keep live and local through the day - on a commercially viable basis - they'd be doing it? Why on earth would they choose to network just because the big boys do it?

Hang on. What's the difference between what this group is doing and Capital daytime jocks recording a few custom links for local stations?

This group does split news, as does Capital and Heart.

The guy says he didn't take the decision to network lightly. Nor, I can safely say, did KMFM.

It seems like you are now prepared to accept networking on financial terms for smaller groups, but not the larger ones - purely because of the enormous grudge you have against them.

Then you admit that OFCOM have a hard enough time of it, conjouring up an unproven link between big groups networking and smaller stations following suit?

Don't you think that if a small group had a bunch of stations which they could keep live and local through the day - on a commercially viable basis - they'd be doing it? Why on earth would they choose to network just because the big boys do it?

I have always said there is a difference between big & small groups.

There was zero justification for stations now Capital & Heart being allowed to merge & network. Their areas were large enough to make money if they produced a decent product

I despair of this weak, toothless regulator. Their dreadful decisions have spelt the end of local radio in the UK & the end of many peoples careers.

I'd usually be with you on networking when it applies to stations turning regional/local licences into national networks by the back door (it's absolutely indefensible to claim a regional licence for East Anglia is too small to be viable - that they caved on that is ludicrous) - but really is it viable to have a commercial station covering just one Kent town? Was it ever viable? These are extremely small licences we're dealing with - looking at France, Belgium, Netherlands, Italy - stations of that size are almost always non-profit community operations, with volunteer presenters and/or mostly automated.

Even if KMFM is county-wide, it's still an unusually local commercial station for the UK... a re-advertisement would probably result in a big national brand picking up the frequencies and after a couple of years you'd have a straight relay of London.

RadioCentre reported that the migration of advertiser revenues to online and digital media has been particularly significant.[182]

174. Ofcom has also attributed much of this decline in revenue to the migration of advertising from commercial radio to the internet.[183] Ofcom highlighted that if the more pessimistic forecasts by media analysts were to be realised, by the end of 2009 many of the smaller radio stations serving less than 700,00 people would be making a loss.[184]

175. The Myers Report, an independent review of the rules governing local content in commercial radio, stated in April 2009 that more than 50 stations around the country could be forced out of business unless there was a radical overhaul of the way the sector was regulated.

Which prompted the changes!
(the chart on the website seems to also make the point well)
UTV and UKRD did not fully agree with the changes and fell out wit the Radiocentre, but since then have made changes themselves under the new laws!

Which prompted the changes!
(the chart on the website seems to also make the point well)
UTV and UKRD did not fully agree with the changes and fell out wit the Radiocentre, but since then have made changes themselves under the new laws!

I dont believe anything Ofcom or the Radio Centre have to say either.

As for Myers...well he just wrote what his mates in the big groups wanted to allow mass networking

As for Myers...well he just wrote what his mates in the big groups wanted to allow mass networking

I see. Don't believe anything that happens to detract from your argument.

Well let me tell you, during part of the 1980s, Trent was almost certainly heavily subsidising Leicester Sound, and during the 1990s it was propping up large parts of the GWR network, as was 210. Even in the nostalgic good old days, it was pretty obvious that Saxon relied on Orwell, and latterly that Borders required the support of Forth.

Come on. One small town in Kent supporting its own radio station in the 2012 landscape? Really? Even places the size of Reading and Lincoln can no longer support a daily newspaper.

Look, I don't like the harsh realities of business any more than you do. In the mid 1990s I led a considerable lobby against the introduction of news hubs.

But you cannot go on living in the past and still have a credible argument. Not least when you refuse to supply a viable alternative other than 'crap regulator' and 'frequency audit'.

Perhaps, as Head of Music at Media Sound, I can put a different slant on this for you. We decided to network our breakfast output across four stations in November 2010 - those are four stations with four different names. Our breakfast show contains split travel updates for each TSA, split news, split events listings....even split weather. Our technology allows our presenter to deliver split links or talk to any individual station at any given time. During the recent wintry weather we delivered split school closures too. Our current breakfast show is no less local in content than it was 2 years ago when we had four separate stations delivering four separate shows.

I can also guarantee that such a decision wasn't taken lightly - it's not about lining the pockets of our shareholders with massive dividends, it was about securing the future of four relatively small licences at a time when trading conditions are as tough as they have been for many years.

The licence of one of our stations has recently been up for renewal - it is now being fast-tracked as no rival bids were received. It's all very well stations handing licences back but if nobody else out there has the resources or ability to deliver something in its place then that area simply loses a local station - how is that going to save the local radio model you seem so passionate about? I admire your passion but your knowledge and understanding of the costs of delivering a decent local radio service in the current economic conditions seems to be lacking.

But don't take my word, why not have a listen tomorrow morning for yourself?

I totally agree with all the above. I listen to Bright Fm most mornings when i wake up and i find it far more informative and 'local' then Heart ever is. For the average listener they would have no idea it was the same presenter on Splash, Soveriegn and Arrow at the same time doing the same thing. The 'local' segments are very well fitted into the programme and this is not only at Breakfast but at other times of the day as well.

The only slight weakness of these stations is there is no presenter on overnight. I think there was for a few weeks last year on Bright but that seems to have stopped?. It is just nice to hear a voice in the night along with the music